Some photographers have an odd way of looking at technology. "Auto" anything is condemned for at least a few years, but eventually it's accepted.
During the 1970s, I worked as a photographer and I was an early adopter of 35mm cameras for some jobs that traditionalists insisted should be photographed with 120 roll film (or even 4x5 sheet film). Through-the-lens (TTL) metering had been invented in the 1960s, but many photographers continued to insist on using hand-held meters well into the 1980s.
In the late 1970s, Polaroid developed a camera that was able to focus itself automatically. Canon followed with an auto-focus system of sorts for 35mm cameras in 1981, but Minolta had the first really successful auto-focus system for SLR cameras when it released the Dynax/Maxxum 7000 in 1985. Some photographers insisted that they could focus better and faster than the camera could. Minolta eventually stopped making cameras, but auto-focus lived on and most photographers now understand that it is usually faster and more accurate than they are, particularly in low-light situations.
Flash auto-exposure arrived, was rejected, and was then accepted by photographers who realized that the system was faster and generally more accurate than they could be.
And digital cameras. Early digital cameras were expensive and the resolution was poor, but that was quickly resolved. Today's digital cameras (from relatively inexpensive devices to cameras that cost tens of thousands of dollars) compete successfully with film.
Much of the time these days I use the "program" mode and save images in raw format from my digital camera. The program mode is generally accurate (or at least close enough) that I can make any needed adjustments. The key for me is recognizing when the automatic system won't interpret the scene properly. When that happens, I switch to full manual operation.
There really isn't a "one-size-fits-all" approach. Sometimes auto-focus isn't appropriate. Sometimes auto-exposure isn't appropriate. Sometimes digital isn't appropriate, but increasingly difficult for me to identify situations where film is the right choice.
Photography is part science and part art. Both parts are important but it seems to me that art should take the lead. If the image you've created (film or digital, monochrome or color, natural light or flash, straight or modified) pleases you and communicates the message you intended, it's a success.
In the days when I was still going to school to learn about photography, TONE photographers were derided. The derision was appropriate then and it's appropriate now: TONE (technique only, nothing else) referred to photographers who set up their equipment so that they could repeat exactly the same image time after time without regard to the subject.
One of the primary advantages that digital photography gives us is the ability to experiment for free. Each shutter click with a film camera cost at least 50 cents (several dollars for sheet film) so experimentation was limited. Today you can take 1 or 1000 photos for the same cost.
Too many photographers, both professional and amateur, still have the cost-per-picture mindset. Get rid of those thoughts. Experiment! You may be amazed by some of the images you can create.
Photoshop and other digital editing tools were also the subject of scorn at one time, but based solely on the advertisements found these days in magazines for both amateur and professional photographers, those days are long gone. In fact, what happens in the electronic darkroom can go a long way toward helping you realize your vision for a photograph.
Re-visit some of your older photographs. Digital photography has been around long enough that some people have 10 years or more of digital images. Or have your old negatives and slides scanned. Then look at them with thoughts about how you might improve them. I found a photo that showed me with a fish sometime in the 1950s. I presume that I had caught the fish, but it seems that I would have preferred not to be holding it.
Here's the original picture. Without a doubt, my father took this picture of me on Kodachrome film using an Argus C3 rangefinder camera.
The image isn't quite straight (he was an electrical contractor, not a photographer, after all) and there are some exposure problems.
Click any of the smaller images for a full-size view.
Press Esc to dismiss the larger image.
So I started by cropping the image a bit and straightening the horizon.
The fish is still badly overexposed. In fact, the fish is so badly overexposed that nothing can be done to save it; but let's see if this image can be improved.
I was working in Adobe Lightroom.
Here I've added some graduated filters and I've tried to darken the fish and add a bit of detail. There's not much that can be done with the fish because it was so overexposed that no details was left.
Having improved the image, I thought that I'd have some fun with Alien Skin's Exposure 7. I used the Low-Fi Holga filter.
The Holga is a medium format (120 roll-film) camera, made in Hong Kong. It was known for low-fidelity images caused by its low-quality lens. The images from a Holga often have unintended vignettes, blur, light leaks, and other distortions. The camera's limitations have brought it a cult following among some photographers, and Holga photos have won awards in competitions for art and news photography.
This might be what the image would have looked like had my father been holding a Holga instead of an Argus.
Here I stepped a bit further back into history with Silver Efex Pro, which used to be a Nik filter but is now owned by Google.
One of my favorite filters is Alien Skin's SnapArt 4. I particularly like the Stylize effect, which I've used here.
It's a bit too much, though. I'd like the background to be stylized, but the fish and I should be normal.
The easiest way to achieve that is in Photoshop.
I opened the image in which I had corrected the exposure and then added another layer with the Stylize effect from Alien Skin's SnapArt 4.
Then I created a mask so that I could look through the Stylized layer to the image behind it and applied invisibility to the fish and to me.
This is the result.
Is it a great photograph? No.
Is it better than the original? It depends on your opinion, but it achieves my vision of the day.
Could it be better? Definitely. Maybe I'll work with it again on some other day.
Although it's not digital photography per se, the digital revolution brings advantages to other activities. Dental X-rays no longer need film. Instead, the dental technician places a sensor where the film would have gone and the X-ray image is available instantly. But it gets better.
Film-based X-rays showed the tooth at its actual size. Digital X-rays can be enlarged and they can be printed.
As it turned out, I needed a root canal (the first I've ever had). In referring me to an endodontic specialist, the dentist asked one of the office workers to print the X-ray image. On paper, my tooth measures about 6 inches from top to bottom. Being able to see an enlarged view of the problem area must be helpful.
As it further turned out, I didn't need a root canal. The endodontist performed a few tests and said, "You don't need a root canal, so I'm going to refer you to a periodontist." The periodontist will see me again in a week, once I've finished with the antibiotics (and after I've concentrated on flossing the way my dental hygenist keeps telling me to do.) That may qualify as too much information.
I'm lazy. Whenever I encounter a task that I have to do more than a few times, I look for a way to automate it. Computers are really good when it comes to doing the same thing over and over. I just get bored. Three applications (two of them are without cost) can automate just about anything your computer can do.
That they can all do many of the same things makes them similar, but not identical. Each has a different approach that will appeal to different types of people.
Macro Express, AutoHotKey, and AutoIt all have ways to automate things. Each has strengths and, perhaps more important, each has a different way of interacting with the user.
Macro Express, for example uses a fill-in-the-blanks approach, AutoIt comes with a specialized editor, and AutoHotKey works with any text editor. AutoIt's code looks a lot like Visual Basic, while AutoHotKey looks a bit like a cross between Perl and Javascript. Macro Express doesn't let the user see the code because it displays markers and forms in its own proprietary editor.
Although I've used Macro Express for many years, I wanted to see what else is available and I found that all 3 of the applications have features that I like.
As with AutoIt and AutoHotKey, Macro Express is a Windows application that automates functions such as filling out Web forms, opening programs, and performing mouse clicks. The proprietary language used to control the application includes support for variables, if-then-else logic, loops, and other functions such as controlling the size and shape of program windows, interacting with the interface, and the ability to start a macro when some external event occurs. This is also true for the other applications.
Unlike AutoHotKey and AutoIt, Macro Express includes the ability to record a user's actions (key strokes and mouse clicks). Recorded processes often need significant editing before they can be used.
Macro Express is available in 2 versions: Macro Express for $40 and Macro Express Pro, with additional features, for $60. The company also offers ShortKeys ($25) and Keyboard Express ($30). A chart on the Macro Express website illustrates the differences.
The Macro Express programming language includes hundreds of commands that can automate nearly anything that the computer can do. For example, you may have invoice files that need to be e-mailed to clients each month. A Macro Express function could read in a list of client names, e-mail addresses, and file names; open the e-mail program; create a new message that contains text and has the invoice file attached; address the message; fill in the subject line; and then place the finished message in the outbox.
A macro such as this would save time (it types faster than people can type) and reduce errors (such as typos and incorrect attachments). One thing that none of the applications I'm describing can do, though, is run in the background. Each must have access to the computer's control surfaces (UI, keyboard, and mouse) so if a user clicks the mouse or types on the keyboard while the macro is running, the result will not be good.
Macro Express offers 3 methods for creating macros:
The editor is a better choice for longer more complicated macros because it organizes commands for easier reading. Each command is placed on its own line.
Download MacroExpress.
Although AutoIt and AutoHotKey have similarities, there are substantial differences. AutoIt is undoubtedly the better tool for those who need to work directly with the operating system. Initially intended to automate the process of setting up computers in a corporate environment, AutoIt has been expanded well beyond that starting point.
Version 3 marks a distinct difference from versions 1 and 2, which were statement-driven and intended mainly to simulate user interaction. Starting with version 3, AutoIt's programming language looks more like Visual Basic, which allows it to claim the status of a "general-purpose, third-generation programming language". The AutoIt data model can store several types of data, including arrays. If you have older computers, it's worth noting that version 3 (released in 2008) does not support operating systems older than Windows 2000.
AutoIt offers the option to convert its scripts into stand-alone executable files so that the macro can be run on computers where AutoIt is not installed. User-defined function libraries are available on the AutoIt website to expand the application's capabilities.
Although users can create and edit scripts in any text editor, AutoIt included an integrated development environment based on the free ScITE editor, which has direct links to the AutoIt compiler and help files.
Download AutoIt.
If you prefer minimalist approaches, be sure you take a look at AutoHotKey. You won't find any menus on the interface because there is no interface. Write a script, link it to AutoHotKey, and it does one of two things: Displays an error message as it's being interpreted or runs.
This is probably the best choice if your goal is to create keyboard replacements: For example, "tbww" can be automatically expanded to "TechByter Worldwide". It can perform more complex tasks, but the text replacement function (from which it gets the name "HotKey") is easy enough that any user will understand the syntax immediately.
::tbww::TechByter Worldwide
This command would react whenever I typed "TBWW" or "tbww" or "TbWw" followed by a terminating character (tab, return, punctuation, parentheses, braces, or brackets) to type TechByter Worldwide.
But I might prefer to be able to type "TBWW" without having it replaced by the macro. Making the replacement case sensitive would take care of that:
:C:tbww::TechByter Worldwide
Or I might want to be able to end a line with "TechByter Worldwide" but without a terminating character. To do that:
:C*:tbww::TechByter Worldwide
The application is tiny and, therefore, fast. Because there's no user interface, AutoHotKey doesn't need various code libraries. After all, the only task it needs to perform involves watching your keyboard to detect when you've pressed a magic sequence of keys. That functionality will cause some antivirus applications to flag it as dangerous. I had this happen with Avast, which wouldn't even allow me to download the file until I disabled Avast.
Avast claims to be aware of the false positive and says that it will be corrected in the next version. Avast probably isn't the only protective application that will throw a false error and AutoHotKey isn't the only download that will provoke one. Any application that monitors keystrokes is automatically considered to be suspect.
AutoHotKey isn't limited to just replacing key strokes. It can run programs, manipulate program windows, and send keystrokes or mouse clicks to the operating system or to applications as well as being able to create, modify, and delete files. And, as with AutoIt, AutoHotKey can convert its scripts into executable programs that can be used by people who don't have the program installed.
AutoHotKey author Chris Mallett had proposed integrating hotkey support into version 2 of AutoIt. The proposal didn't gain enough support from users, so Mallett developed his own program, basing it on AutoIt version 2 syntax and using AutoIt version 3's compiler.
Although still offered as freeware, AutoHotKey is no longer an open-source application.
Download AutoHotKey.
Which autotmation system you need (if any) will depend on what you want it to do and how you prefer to work. Those who are looking primarily to create hotkey text replacements should first look at AutoHotKey. Those who need more robust capabilities will be better served by either AutoIt or MacroExpress. AutoIt would be the better choice for those who prefer to stick their hands into the actual code and MacroExpress would be the right selection for those who want a more visual approach (and have a few dollars to spend).
For decades, the largest income segment for Microsoft was software — operating systems and, even more important, the Office suite. Microsoft has largely fended off challenges from open source operating systems and office suites. Apple hasn't been able to get any significant traction in offices. But that doesn't mean Microsoft will continue to be king of the desktop.
Dinosaurs were huge and fearsome, but in the end it was the mice who won the battle for survival. Microsoft clearly understands that times are changing. The question is whether Microsoft can change fast enough to survive.
The upcoming Windows 10 release is the most obvious indicator so far of what is coming. Users of Windows 7, 8, and 8.1 will be able to upgrade to Windows 10 without charge and computers that are upgraded within a year of when version 10 is released will continue to receive Windows updates for the life of the computer.
This week, Microsoft announced that users in China would receive upgrades at no cost, even if they're using a pirated copy of Windows. Former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer often complained that only 10% of Windows installations in China were legitimate.
Changing to a system that licenses an operating system to a computer simplifies the process considerably. And now it's time to think about the future of the office applications. Cloud-based systems are becoming increasingly attractive and the pricing model for applications on portable devices is challenging Microsoft's old policies.
Many applications for portable devices are sold for just a few dollars, never expire, and can be used without additional charge on all the devices the user owns. That's not likely to be a viable option for Microsoft, but the company is making the main Office suite components available on portable devices without charge.
An even better example, and one that directly relates to operating systems for computers, is the way operating systems are sold with portable devices. The smart phone or tablet comes with an operating system and in most cases, operating system updates are pushed out without the need for any action by the user. Or at least that's the way it's supposed to work. Very few owners of Android phones or tables are running version 5 of the operating system. Most of us are still on version 4.4.4 because the various device providers need to add their individual bloatware before making the new version available to users.
Or if you own a Chromebook, updates to the operating system are downloaded and installed automatically whenever you reboot the computer. If you buy a new Windows computer on a portable device (anything with a screen smaller than 9 inches diagonally), the operating system is free.
Chromebooks could well be viewed by Microsoft as dinosaurs viewed mice, but they are a fundamental threat to larger computers. They're fast enough to handle the kinds of tasks that most users need — e-mail, Web browsing, letters, spreadsheets, and a list or two.
Microsoft is moving more into the hardware arena, which is where Apple has been from the beginning. Apple built hardware before it built operating systems and hardware is still the key to Apple's success.
Increasingly, that appears to be Microsoft's vision.
If Premera Blue Cross looks a bit under the weather, it probably has something to do with the millions of customer records that have been exposed to thieves — personal identification information, financial information, and medical information.
Premera says that the security flaw has been corrected and that they're also working to improve their security procedures. The attack occurred on May 4, 2014. Yes, that's nearly a year ago! Premera didn't discover the break-in until January 29th this year.
Premera says 11,000,000 customer records are at risk.
Those customers whose information is at risk subscribe to Premera Blue Cross, Premera Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alaska, Vivacity, or Connexion Insurance Solutions. A statement on the company's website says the investigation found that the attackers may have gained unauthorized access to "name, date of birth, email address, address, telephone number, Social Security number, member identification numbers, bank account information, and claims information, including clinical information." Even if you're a member of another Blue Cross Blue Shield plan, your information is at risk if you received treatment in Washington or Alaska.
If there's good news, it's this: Premera says that it has no evidence that suggests any information was actually stolen or used.
If all this sounds familiar, just a few weeks ago Anthem, another Blue Cross Blue Shield provider, said that a breach of their network exposed information for as many as 80 million people.
Premera says that letters will be mailed to those whose information has been exposed. The company has explicitly stated that it will use postal mail to communicate with subscribers and says that customers should not reply to e-mails claiming to be providing information from Premera about the break-in.
Kaspersky Lab has released a free Android app that they say can protect both the portable device and the data on it. "Phound", by the way, is a portmanteau of "phone" and "hound". Now you know.
Phound will phind (ah, find -- sorry) your phone or tablet. Or at least try to. And if it can't help you recover the device, you can use it to delete all of the data on the device.
If your device goes missing, you can first try to find it on a map using GPS, GSM, or Wi-Fi networks. Then you can have the phone take a picture on the off-chance that you might capture an image of the thief or some clue about exactly where it is. Or, if you think that you just misplaced the phone or tablet at home, turn on the alarm so that you can find the phone. Still no luck? Then display a message on the device's screen. As a last resort, you can tell Phound to delete everything on the device.
Smart phones and tablets are easy to lose. They're easy to steal. Making the situation even worse, most users have information stored on the devices that they wouldn't want a finder or a thief to have.
Kaspersky Phound is available from the Google Play Store and works with Kaspersky Lab's other free and paid mobile products. Senior Product Manager Alexey Chikov says that because so many users store important information on portable devices, "smart phones and tablets need the same security as a bank vault." The problem is that unlike bank vaults, which are heavy and not very mobile, smart phones are light and highly portable.
